Federal Reports

As part of our mission to safeguard the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) programs from fraud, waste, and abuse, and to identify opportunities for HUD programs to progress and succeed, we selected Colorado for a review of potential improper payments.  Our audit objective was to determine whether Colorado made improper non-Federal match activity payments.  We also assessed whether the Office of Community Planning and Development’s Office of Disaster Recovery (CPD ODR) had sufficient and adequate controls to prevent improper match payments.

We did not identify duplicate or significant amounts of unsupported non-Federal match payments for Colorado.  However, Colorado received $1.3 million of disaster recovery reimbursements from HUD that it reported as matching costs for FEMA’s Public Assistance program, but the costs were other disaster recovery costs.  This occurred because Colorado did not establish financial or payment controls for non-Federal match costs within HUD’s Disaster Recovery Grants Reporting (DRGR) system.  CPD does not require disaster recovery grantees to separately report non-Federal match costs in its data systems.  As a result, Colorado over-reported the amount of HUD disaster recovery funds it spent on non-Federal match activities.  Colorado’s reporting could increase the risk of improper payments as HUD and its stakeholders cannot use HUD’s data systems and reports to ensure that Colorado properly uses its disaster recovery funds for non-Federal match activities.

We recommend that Colorado incorporate financial and other internal controls to ensure that it allocates, tracks, and reports non-Federal match costs separately from non-match costs.  If Colorado does so, it will enhance the accuracy and transparency of its reporting of $1.3 million of disaster recovery funds.  We also recommend that CPD ODR require disaster recovery grantees to report non-Federal match activities or expenses in its data systems in a manner which will show that grantees are properly using their disaster recovery funds for the non-Federal match portion of FEMA’s Public Assistance program.
 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) cannot ensure non-Federal entities used Emergency Food and Shelter Program Humanitarian Relief (EFSP-H) and Shelter and Services Program (SSP) funding in fiscal years 2023 and 2024 in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.  Without improved oversight, FEMA faces an increased risk of funding unallowable costs and making duplicate payments when administering grants.   Specifically, we found FEMA: • did not review EFSP-H expenditures to ensure funds were used for allowable costs and eligible aliens, resulting in $425 million in questioned costs; • did not consistently review SSP payment requests to verify that costs were allowable, resulting in $16.5 million in questioned costs; and • did not perform verification to prevent duplication of funding between EFSP-H and SSP grants.  These deficiencies occurred because FEMA did not establish and implement necessary internal controls to review EFSP-H and SSP expenditures.  Although DHS terminated the SSP grant awards after we began fieldwork, we completed this audit as our findings may help FEMA avoid fraud, waste, or abuse during program closeout.   Data Access: FEMA denied us direct, read-only access to the FEMA Grants Outcomes back-end database.  After multiple delays, FEMA instead provided raw data for SSP grants and then direct, read-only access to SSP award records through the system’s front-end interface. 

Semiannual Report to Congress (26-1)

During the week of December 8, 2025, we performed a self-initiated audit at the Westchester Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) and four delivery units serviced by the plant. The delivery units included the Mount Vernon, New Rouchelle, White Plains, and Yonkers Main Post Offices in the New York, NY, area.

We issued individual reports for the four delivery units and the P&DC. We also issued another report summarizing the results of our audits at all four delivery units with specific recommendations for management to address.

Why We Did This Report

We conducted this audit to determine whether the EPA is managing its Superfund special accounts properly and timely in accordance with applicable laws, policies, and guidance.
 

Summary of Findings

Based on our in-depth review of nine Superfund special accounts, we found that the EPA generally managed special accounts in accordance with applicable laws, policies, and guidance, with the exceptions that the EPA needs to take steps to expeditiously use the funds in the Anniston Lead Superfund Site special account and needs to correct special accounts with negative balances in a timely manner.